NationStates Jolt Archive

This is what it is word for word, please approve of this resolution:


The problems of today are caused by crime. Therefore the UN has to make it mandatory for all humans to have microchips inserted in their bodies, so that they maybe tracked at all times. This would help reduce the rate of crime, because if you do something wrong, you will be caught. If you are innocent, then you have nothing to hide and therefore do not need to worry about this. But for those who shop lift or commit murder, then they will be stopped. Plus this would shorten the amount of time spent in court. Overall, this resolution would reduce crime and speed up the justice system.

A complete and utter ignoration of my citizens' civil rights and privacies! I will have to leave the UN if this is enforced, which it probably won't be. I think I've said enough there.

We have to limit some civil liberties in order to protect the INNOCENT. If we do not do this then, many INNOCENT people will go to jail by accident.

Yeah, some civil liberties. More like a complete eradication of all our rights. Sorry, I'm kind of short on time for the moment. I'm not trying to be rude. Most of the UN would like to keep their civil rights up at a reasonable amount.

This is not going to really hurt civil rights. It is for protecting the INNOCENT and putting the guilty away. I away, a believe that people will be more happy to have a microchip in their body, if it means they can sleep at night without worrying about if they will be robbed or murdered.

I sleep safely at night, and I don't have a microchip in my body. I would like a reduction of crime, but I just don't think inserting a microchip in everyone is the right answer. At what cost of protecting the innocent? All citizens will be tracked like crazy; the government would know when and where they went to the bathroom, stuff like that. I believe a much more efficient and less intrusive solution can be found, although it will take some more effort to find it. We should start off with polishing the Justice System, but that's just my opinion.

So who cares if the government knows where you are at all times. This means that old people that get heart attacks, will have a greaty chance of living, because the government could send for an ambulance. Thus saving lives. This is the best system for the job. If you do nothing wrong in the bathroom, than what do you have to hide?

So who cares if the government knows where you are at all times. This means that old people that get heart attacks, will have a greaty chance of living, because the government could send for an ambulance. Thus saving lives. This is the best system for the job. If you do nothing wrong in the bathroom, than what do you have to hide?

Would all citizens appreciate it? Sounds to me this will create an uproar. Let me ask you...would you like it if the government was tracking you? Following you? Strange men in black suits and limosines mysteriously tailing you day in day out? :lol: Well, seriously, I wouldn't really appreciate it if people were tracking me all day, not that I'd do anything wrong, but I think the government shouldn't interfere as much in our personal lives. Not all gov's are benevolent.

I would not mind people in black suits traking my movement. In fact I would feel safe knowing that if anything happens to me, that they will be right there to help out.

The Government has no right to insert any such identification device into any such being for the purpose of security. It will be impossible for anyone to guarintee anyone's safety in the world regardless of what we do. Putting electronic devices into people in order to track/monitor people and their actions is irresponsible. DNA evidence, once perfected, will determine if people are at the scene of a crime.

Has anyone ever read 1984? Well, if you have, you'll know what I mean by Say hello to Big Brother if this resolution is passed. Ignorant author.

If you do nothing wrong in the bathroom, than what do you have to hide?

And if you do lots of things wrong in the bathroom? :wink:

I would not mind people in black suits traking my movement. In fact I would feel safe knowing that if anything happens to me, that they will be right there to help out.


Sounds like your case, you have "men in white coats tracking your movements". :twisted:

This has GOT to be one of the most idiotic proposals I have ever heard!

The problems of today are caused by crime.

Many of the problems of history have been caused by excesses in government such as the one you propose.

If you are innocent, then you have nothing to hide and therefore do not need to worry about this.

Perhaps. You imply that the government is perfect, and history has demonstrated, time and again, to the point that there is no reasonable doubt on the matter, that the government cannot be trusted to this extent.

But for those who shop lift or commit murder, then they will be stopped.

What about those who become political dissidents? Or just those who go against the will of the now omnipotent government? You may say that no government would ever consider arresting or eliminating all who oppose its rule, but I ask you what could possibly stop them from doing so if this system were adopted. All who oppose -- including those who oppose the elimination of the dissidents -- would be known. The government could easily control all aspects of life.

We have to limit some civil liberties in order to protect the INNOCENT. If we do not do this then, many INNOCENT people will go to jail by accident.

If we do this, many innocent people will go to jail on purpose.

This is not going to really hurt civil rights.

Apparently your definition of civil rights differs from the one that is generally accepted.

I away, a believe that people will be more happy to have a microchip in their body, if it means they can sleep at night without worrying about if they will be robbed or murdered.

Many people can already sleep safely and soundly every night. How many people are robbed and murdered in this world? The numbers are low -- if people fear, they generally do so beyond reason. There are exceptions to that, of course, but exceptions do not make rules.

Would you sleep well at night, knowing that the government is watching? If you have nightmares of killing people, what will the watchers do? If you mention that you might vote against the watchers in the next election, what will they do? If you do vote against the watchers, what will they do?

This means that old people that get heart attacks, will have a greaty chance of living, because the government could send for an ambulance.

So allow old people to implant devices into themselves that will notify the authorities if they have a heart attack -- there is no need to mandate the invasion of every citizen's privacy.

If you do nothing wrong in the bathroom, than what do you have to hide?

I take it you proudly strut nude in all public gatherings? You apparently have nothing to hide.

So who cares if the government knows where you are at all times.

...yeah. I don't even think that needs a response.

Has anyone ever read 1984? Well, if you have, you'll know what I mean by Say hello to Big Brother if this resolution is passed. Ignorant author.

I've read it.

People should read it before they put forward these sort of proposals.

We have to limit some civil liberties in order to protect the INNOCENT. If we do not do this then, many INNOCENT people will go to jail by accident.

No, MORE innocent people will go to jail when you curtail civil liberties.

More INNOCENT people would not go to jail, because the government would know if they did something wrong or not. Also, the amount of court cases would drop, because people would not sue somebody, if they knew that they would have proff. And plus I have read 1984. But that is a book and this is reality. If you do not agree with this resolution, than I would have to say, that you would like the INNOCENT being put on death row, even though they are INNOCENT.

More INNOCENT people would not go to jail, because the government would know if they did something wrong or not. Also, the amount of court cases would drop, because people would not sue somebody, if they knew that they would have proff. And plus I have read 1984. But that is a book and this is reality. If you do not agree with this resolution, than I would have to say, that you would like the INNOCENT being put on death row, even though they are INNOCENT.

That assumes that the government always looks out for the best interests of the people *snicker*.

It is up to the individual government to do what is best for it's people. So therefor, why do you not agree with the resolution I want to become law?

More INNOCENT people would not go to jail, because the government would know if they did something wrong or not.

You either haven't been paying attention to your history classes or you haven't had any yet.

It is up to the individual government to do what is best for it's people. So therefor, why do you not agree with the resolution I want to become law?

Governments are obliged to help their people? Why? What force makes them do that? When the government can control every move every person makes, how can the people possibly hope to control or even influence the government?

Also, the amount of court cases would drop, because people would not sue somebody, if they knew that they would have proff.

Oh, so now even private citizens can watch and have access to my every move? This is getting even worse.

And plus I have read 1984. But that is a book and this is reality.

This is reality? I sure hope it isn't.

If you do not agree with this resolution, than I would have to say, that you would like the INNOCENT being put on death row, even though they are INNOCENT.

That assumes I support the death penalty.

The INNOCENT will be protected and their rights will not be taken away, because you are the leader of your nation and therefore do not need to worry that the INNOCENT will lose their rights. Plus if enough people start to be taken out of their homes, don't you think the people will rise up against the government?

My nation barcodes all our citizens, so microchips wouldnt matter much to us.

Plus if enough people start to be taken out of their homes, don't you think the people will rise up against the government?

How will the people rise up? If the government can watch every move they make, hear every word they speak, revolution will be nearly impossible. That aside, isn't it grand when the people's only way of influencing the government is to take up arms and start a bloody war?

How will people find out that people are being arrested? It's not as if the government would let the media report that -- these people were, after all, "criminals," and reporting the presence of criminals would make people feel unsafe -- or, if you prefer, the government would not easily admit that it was jailing or killing large masses of people. And how could an independent media function if the government can watch every reporter's every move, along with the same for all of their sources? Of course the situation would become quite apparent once it reached a certain progression, but that is not and should not be used as a safe device to protect the people.

The INNOCENT will be protected and their rights will not be taken away, because you are the leader of your nation and therefore do not need to worry that the INNOCENT will lose their rights.

Remember when you said 1984 is irrelevant because it isn't real?

The INNOCENT will be protected and their rights will not be taken away, because you are the leader of your nation and therefore do not need to worry that the INNOCENT will lose their rights. Plus if enough people start to be taken out of their homes, don't you think the people will rise up against the government?

IT IS VAIN, SIR, TO EXTENUATE THE MATTER! GENTLEMEN MAY CRY, 'PEACE! PEACE!' -- BUT THERE IS NO PEACE! THE WAR IS ACTUALLY BEGUN! THE NEXT GALE THAT SWEEPS FROM THE NORTH WILL BRING TO OUR EARS THE CLASH OF RESOUNDING ARMS! OUR BRETHERN ARE ALREADY IN THE FIELD! WHY STAND WE HERE IDLE? WHAT IS IT GENTLEMEN WISH? WHAT WOULD THEY HAVE? IS LIFE SO DEAR, OR PEACE SO SWEET, AS TO BE PURCHASED AT THE PRICE OF CHAINS AND SLAVERY? FORBID IT NOW, ALMIGHTY GOD! I KNOW NOT WHAT COURSE OTHERS MAY TAKE, BUT AS FOR ME -- GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH.

Face it people, the average person cannot make a good decision. This would apply to Justic System. Do you really think that a group of people can acctually make a fair sentece for a person when there are lots of lawyers out there, trying to twist the truth? The answer is no. With this system, there would be no problem in finding out who is INNOCENT and who is not.

Face it people, the average person cannot make a good decision. This would apply to Justic System. Do you really think that a group of people can acctually make a fair sentece for a person when there are lots of lawyers out there, trying to twist the truth? The answer is no. With this system, there would be no problem in finding out who is INNOCENT and who is not.

Why do you always put the word 'innocent' in caps?

And bessides, I don't think I have to tell you how easily your system can be abused. The State isn't God. It isn't supposed to be.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

By putting INNOCENT in caps, it stress the point and makes people see the word and think it is good. Second off, God is a dictator, if he exists. This is so because he has absolute power and nobody checks it. What stops god from taking away everybody's rights. It is just a person we have to trust. Just like how we have to trust the government.

By putting INNOCENT in caps, it stress the point and makes people see the word and think it is good. Second off, God is a dictator, if he exists. This is so because he has absolute power and nobody checks it. What stops god from taking away everybody's rights. It is just a person we have to trust. Just like how we have to trust the government.

By putting innocent in caps, you're just being friggin' annoying.

What if I put the word THE in caps all the time?

See, THE thing is, theoretically speaking, God is incorruptible. He can't violate anyone's rights. We can't prove that God exists, but theoretically speaking, God is all good, right? Therefore, you CAN trust him.

The government, on THE other hand...

The best quote I can find to describe the US Government is this one:

"THE illegal we do immediately. THE unconstitutional takes a bit longer."
--Henry Kissinger

Which is why THE Constitution is so damn important. And THE Fourth and Ninth Amendments make your proposal unconstitutional.

This is not America plain and simple.

This is not America plain and simple.

Well, I was talking about the Constitution in the context that it protects rights, so I don't see why it is America-specific...

Our own Declaration of Rights specifically prohibits your proposal:

ARTICLE 5. All law-abiding citizens shall enjoy privacy while performing peaceful activities within their own homes, on their own property, and shall enjoy privileged communications with legal, medical, and business consultants, as well as in personal conversations done in private.

The fourth and ninth amendments you were talking about refere it to america

The fourth and ninth amendments you were talking about refere it to america

But they embody values of liberty that transcend America.

This would also help out on the battle field. The military would know where all of its soldiers are, and this would help to make sure that no one is left behind. Plus it would reduce the amount of casulties because the generals could make last mintue decissions about where to attack.

This would also help out on the battle field. The military would know where all of its soldiers are, and this would help to make sure that no one is left behind. Plus it would reduce the amount of casulties because the generals could make last mintue decissions about where to attack.

The military already does that with the new Land Warrior combat system...

But you're either a fool or a dictator-wannabe or both if you think civil society should run under military rules.

God is a dictator, if he exists. This is so because he has absolute power and nobody checks it. What stops god from taking away everybody's rights. It is just a person we have to trust. Just like how we have to trust the government.

So the government is God, now?

Suppose that, by some strange chance, you manage to convince a few people that they should throw away all of their civil liberties. Why does that make this an issue that the United Nations should force on all of its member peoples?

And why, exactly, does military conflict have relevance? We're discussing the civilian world, here.

Because putting micrchips in people would reduce crime and have a lot of other positive effects

Because putting micrchips in people would reduce crime and have a lot of other positive effects

And it would have a lot of negative effects, like eradicating civil liberties by turning every nation in the world into an absolute police-state. Today's crime does not cripple society. Totalitarian governments harm their people more than the problems they were instituted to solve.

And far left-winged governments kill industries and take avantage of the rich, by giving the money the rich make to the poor.

And far left-winged governments kill industries and take avantage of the rich, by giving the money the rich make to the poor.

This is relevant... why?

Satin was talking about, how bad Totalitarian governments are. And I wanted to show him if he thinks that is bad he better look at far-left winged governments. Sorry if I did not make that clear to begin with.

Satin was talking about, how bad Totalitarian governments are. And I wanted to show him if he thinks that is bad he better look at far-left winged governments. Sorry if I did not make that clear to begin with.

Left-wing and totalitarian aren't in conflict. There are totalitarian left-wing governments (i.e. Stalinism). And there are nontotalitarian right-wing governments (i.e. Capitalism).

To get back on track. I believe that microchips in people would have more positive effects than negative ones. Feel free to try and challenge it.

To get back on track. I believe that microchips in people would have more positive effects than negative ones. Feel free to try and challenge it.

That's ... what hte last two pages of arguments were for.

Let me put it this way.

People murdered by criminals/terrorists in the last 100 years: 1.5 million
People killed by government in last 100 years: 200 million

I think that's enough said.

Where are you getting this information from? A two year old?

To get back on track. I believe that microchips in people would have more positive effects than negative ones. Feel free to try and challenge it.

OK so positive effects are: safety(for all but criminals and political dissidants), more effective criminal justace.

Disadvantages: Total loss of privacy, possiblity of loss of political freedoms, complete control given to government.

Plus you are not completly protecting the innocent because the chip will only be useful after the crime has been commited! This is 0% effective in crimes of passion. Not to mention the possiblity of jammers being used to prevent the invasion of privacy.

And if you truly are seeking saftey then why not lobotomize almost everyone else. Teach some of them to do repetitive tasks for farm work and trap the rest in a big sanitarium. There is 100% prevention of any criminal act right there.

Keeping the tradition: "Those who would trade essental liberty for temporary saftey are deserving of neither."

Where are you getting this information from? A two year old?

The statistic for government is generally accepted. Go on any site about genocide or something. It's pretty realistic too:

Major genocides:
Mao: 40 million people died in "Great Leap Forward", 5 million political dissidents and criminals killed: 45 million total
Stalin: 7.5 millon killed in forced famine in Ukraine, 2.5 million in show trials and purges outside of Ukraine, etc: 10 million total
Hitler: 6 million in Holocaust, 1.5 million in other domestic outages against civilians: 7.5 million total
Genocide of Armenians in Turkey: 1.5 million dead
Rwanda: 1 million dead
Boznia/Herzegovena: 500,000 dead
Pol Pot: 2 million dead

Total for genocides: About 60 million

Wartime, including civilians:
WWI: 10 million dead
WWII: 50 million dead
Other: 40 million dead

Total: 100 million

Other 40 million you could scrape up from miscellanous areas. Happy?


The statistic for murders by criminals was extrapolated by yours truly based on current murder rates (about 10,000/year in the United States, 25,000/year in the world at large) times 100 years yields 2.5 million, times 60% as a population ratio (there were less people in 1900) yields 1.5 million.

To get back on track. I believe that microchips in people would have more positive effects than negative ones. Feel free to try and challenge it.

OK so positive effects are: safety(for all but criminals and political dissidants), more effective criminal justace.

Disadvantages: Total loss of privacy, possiblity of loss of political freedoms, complete control given to government.

Plus you are not completly protecting the innocent because the chip will only be useful after the crime has been commited! This is 0% effective in crimes of passion. Not to mention the possiblity of jammers being used to prevent the invasion of privacy.

And if you truly are seeking saftey then why not lobotomize almost everyone else. Teach some of them to do repetitive tasks for farm work and trap the rest in a big sanitarium. There is 100% prevention of any criminal act right there.

Keeping the tradition: "Those who would trade essental liberty for temporary saftey are deserving of neither."

Or just pump people full of dopamine a la Brave New World. I trust you've read that too, Nucular? I thought it was better than 1984... more subtle, you know?

living in a fishbowl will not prevent crime for several reasons

for one it is only a matter of time before organized criminals manage to hack into the system and goddess only knows what kind of hell would break loose then

not only that but innocent well meaning people DO get nervous when being watched, nervous enough to inadvertantly do things they never would otherwise, some of which might happen to be unlawful

and finaly what guarantees and protactions could possibly insure that information so gathered would only be used for the good of civilization or for the good at all?

and here's another thing
just cause a system is in place to monitor everybody
how could such a system with so much input be itself monitored?

and is there any government or anybody else for that matter you'd trust THAT much?

nor has that yet been invented any system of criminal justice that is not prone to error.

for that matter could a government function if every politician knew what every other politician was doing?

wouldn't there be so many politicly motivated mountain out of molehill scandals that nothing else would get done?

(not that this last would always neccessarily be a bad thing come to think of it)

wouldn't law enforcement itself still have the occasional need to make unobserved observations?

far from the panacea claimed i would fully expect to see such a system, even if it COULD ever be implimented in anything remotely approaching a fair and impartial way, creating more problems then it would solve

innocent nothing to fear? ever hear of politics?

don't try to tell me any such system couldn't and wouldn't be abused somehow, as soon if not sooner then it was brought on line

=^^=
.../\...

It would prevent crime because it would make people think twice about commting it because they know they will be caught.

living in a fishbowl will not prevent crime for several reasons

for one it is only a matter of time before organized criminals manage to hack into the system and goddess only knows what kind of hell would break loose then

not only that but innocent well meaning people DO get nervous when being watched, nervous enough to inadvertantly do things they never would otherwise, some of which might happen to be unlawful

and finaly what guarantees and protactions could possibly insure that information so gathered would only be used for the good of civilization or for the good at all?

and here's another thing
just cause a system is in place to monitor everybody
how could such a system with so much input be itself monitored?

and is there any government or anybody else for that matter you'd trust THAT much?

nor has that yet been invented any system of criminal justice that is not prone to error.

for that matter could a government function if every politician knew what every other politician was doing?

wouldn't there be so many politicly motivated mountain out of molehill scandals that nothing else would get done?

(not that this last would always neccessarily be a bad thing come to think of it)

wouldn't law enforcement itself still have the occasional need to make unobserved observations?

far from the panacea claimed i would fully expect to see such a system, even if it COULD ever be implimented in anything remotely approaching a fair and impartial way, creating more problems then it would solve

innocent nothing to fear? ever hear of politics?

don't try to tell me any such system couldn't and wouldn't be abused somehow, as soon if not sooner then it was brought on line

=^^=
.../\...

You read him earlier, "The government is God. We must trust the government." or something like that.

It would prevent crime because it would make people think twice about commting it because they know they will be caught.

Let me ask you this... what if I suddenly posted your name, address, age, telephone number, gender, race, what you do for work, how much money you make, your credit card number, your social security number, etc., etc. on this forum and I told you that I know all about you. Wouldn't that make you a little scared... even if you weren't a criminal?

Yes the Government should be treated as god.

It would prevent crime because it would make people think twice about commting it because they know they will be caught.

Let me ask you this... what if I suddenly posted your name, address, age, telephone number, gender, race, what you do for work, how much money you make, your credit card number, your social security number, etc., etc. on this forum and I told you that I know all about you. Wouldn't that make you a little scared... even if you weren't a criminal?

There would be no need to that. Plus the government already knows all of that information

It would prevent crime because it would make people think twice about commting it because they know they will be caught.

Let me ask you this... what if I suddenly posted your name, address, age, telephone number, gender, race, what you do for work, how much money you make, your credit card number, your social security number, etc., etc. on this forum and I told you that I know all about you. Wouldn't that make you a little scared... even if you weren't a criminal?

There would be no need to that. Plus the government already knows all of that information

You could probably hide that information from the government, get a name change, all that, you know. Besides, you know how easy it is to cheat on tax audits :lol:.

The government is not God. The government is made up of people, who are usually neither wise enough nor virtuous enough to run a government.

Then what do you say about Thomas Jefferson or Washington. They were very great leaders. Plus I do not :?

Then what do you say about Thomas Jefferson or Washington. They were very great leaders. Plus I do not :?

Yes, Jefferson and Washington were great leaders. And they both realized that, when lots of people get together and make a government, even the best people in the world will go the way of Robespierre from the French Revolution.

Washington was offered a chance to be king, he refused.

Jefferson said things like "The government that governs least governs best." and "A revolution now and then is a healthy thing, it is the medicine that keeps government healthy." and "the tree of liberty must constantly be manured by the blood of tyrants and patriots."

They were great men because they realized that great men in government are the exception and not the rule. If you wish to use them, they will clearly come down AGAINST your proposal.

I am saying that I am like Washington and Thomas Jefferson, in the way that I know what is best for my people and that I do not abuse my power.

:tantrum:
There's no way! How could anyone want people watching them 24/7? Did y'all watch the Truman Show? What if that was you drawing an alien in the mirror? Or having sex? Or picking your nose? What if it feels good to break a rule every once in a while? No one's perfect. Civil rights cannot exist when every citizen is forced to have a microchip implanted into their flesh so that the government can track them. When a corrupt government official gets ahold of the tracking system, mayhem would be let loose. Give me liberty or give me death!

I am saying that I am like Washington and Thomas Jefferson, in the way that I know what is best for my people and that I do not abuse my power.

But Washington and Jefferson realized that the only way not to abuse power was NOT to keep power for too long. Jefferson called the presidency a "Splendid Misery" and Washington called it a "Gilded Cage". Washington voluntarily refused to run for a third term (it wasn't law until the latter 20th century) and Jefferson did the same.

Because whenever someone stays in power too long... the power gets to their heads. Washington and Jefferson both realized this. That's why Jefferson was so adamant about the right of states to nullify federal laws and the right of people to overthrow their government, by force if necessary, if all else fails.

I am saying that I am like Washington and Thomas Jefferson, in the way that I know what is best for my people and that I do not abuse my power.

But Washington and Jefferson realized that the only way not to abuse power was NOT to keep power for too long. Jefferson called the presidency a "Splendid Misery" and Washington called it a "Gilded Cage". Washington voluntarily refused to run for a third term (it wasn't law until the latter 20th century) and Jefferson did the same.

Because whenever someone stays in power too long... the power gets to their heads. Washington and Jefferson both realized this. That's why Jefferson was so adamant about the right of states to nullify federal laws and the right of people to overthrow their government, by force if necessary, if all else fails.

This would not limit elections or how long somebody can stay in office for. So if your government said that people could only have two terms in office, than the government would not become corrupt.

I am saying that I am like Washington and Thomas Jefferson, in the way that I know what is best for my people and that I do not abuse my power.

But Washington and Jefferson realized that the only way not to abuse power was NOT to keep power for too long. Jefferson called the presidency a "Splendid Misery" and Washington called it a "Gilded Cage". Washington voluntarily refused to run for a third term (it wasn't law until the latter 20th century) and Jefferson did the same.

Because whenever someone stays in power too long... the power gets to their heads. Washington and Jefferson both realized this. That's why Jefferson was so adamant about the right of states to nullify federal laws and the right of people to overthrow their government, by force if necessary, if all else fails.

This would not limit elections or how long somebody can stay in office for. So if your government said that people could only have two terms in office, than the government would not become corrupt.

Some people can be corrupted in just a few weeks. Maximien Robespierre was known as "The Incorruptible", a principled lawyer who spoke for liberty and against the death penalty and other revolutionary excesses in December 1792. He ordered Louis XVI executed in January 1793 after getting power and began the reign of terror the following month.

The only solution is to scale down the power of government and to put it in the hands of more people. In this way, you need to decrease executive powers and establish a well-supported Constitution and court system to protect people from teh government.

I am saying that I am like Washington and Thomas Jefferson, in the way that I know what is best for my people and that I do not abuse my power.

But Washington and Jefferson realized that the only way not to abuse power was NOT to keep power for too long. Jefferson called the presidency a "Splendid Misery" and Washington called it a "Gilded Cage". Washington voluntarily refused to run for a third term (it wasn't law until the latter 20th century) and Jefferson did the same.

Because whenever someone stays in power too long... the power gets to their heads. Washington and Jefferson both realized this. That's why Jefferson was so adamant about the right of states to nullify federal laws and the right of people to overthrow their government, by force if necessary, if all else fails.

This would not limit elections or how long somebody can stay in office for. So if your government said that people could only have two terms in office, than the government would not become corrupt.

Some people can be corrupted in just a few weeks. Maximien Robespierre was known as "The Incorruptible", a principled lawyer who spoke for liberty and against the death penalty and other revolutionary excesses in December 1792. He ordered Louis XVI executed in January 1793 after getting power and began the reign of terror the following month.

The only solution is to scale down the power of government and to put it in the hands of more people. In this way, you need to decrease executive powers and establish a well-supported Constitution and court system to protect people from teh government.

I agree with you, The Global Market. That is why i am a confederacy

I agree with you, The Global Market. That is why i am a confederacy

But one that promots the power of the government over citizens right to privacy.

So what is so bad about promoting government over citizen's right to privacy. Are citizens doing illegal things at home when nobody is watching them?

Some people just don't like being constant watch. Remember, a large majority of people don't want this to pass. Just because you want it to dose not mean its right for everyone.

I never said this was right for everyone. I just likeit will help out alot of nations in the short and long run.

I would not mind people in black suits traking my movement. In fact I would feel safe knowing that if anything happens to me, that they will be right there to help out.

...or shoot you...

Why would they shoot me, if they had no reason to do that?

Why would they shoot me, if they had no reason to do that?

If you protest or something. Or maybe just for fun. Government IS the leading cause of non-natural death, after all.

Why would they shoot me, if they had no reason to do that?

If you protest or something. Or maybe just for fun. Government IS the leading cause of non-natural death, after all.


Government is not the leading cause of non-natural death. Please prove this statement. Just because two nations like germany and the USSR have killed people before does not protray the average nation. Do not let one bad apple ruin all of the apples.

Why would they shoot me, if they had no reason to do that?

If you protest or something. Or maybe just for fun. Government IS the leading cause of non-natural death, after all.


Government is not the leading cause of non-natural death. Please prove this statement. Just because two nations like germany and the USSR have killed people before does not protray the average nation. Do not let one bad apple ruin all of the apples.

In the last 100 years,

China has killed 50 million
USA has killed 15-20 million
Japan has killed 10-15 million
Turkey has killed 2 million
Iraq has killed 3-4 million
Iran has killed 2 million
Cambodia has killed 2 million
Rwanda has killed 1 million
Burundi has killed 500,00-1 million
Ukraine has killed 1-2 million

Quite a lot of bad apples, wouldn't you say? And those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.

Yeah and the extermination of the Jews was for the "Protection of the Aryan Race and Culture".


Seig Hiel Dude, and you know where to put your "Proposal". :lol:

tell me a websit where you got the numbers off of. Other wise I think you are making them up.

Anyone who does not agree with this resolution, is a crimial.

Anyone who does not agree with this resolution, is a crimial.

Or someone who vales their privacy, or someone who does not trust the government. Well mabye according to YOU they SHOULD BE a criminal but in some places that is not true. Not to mention that not all things people wish to hide are criminal acts.

This proposal is pointless, there is already a Nation States Issue on this, in relation to the use of many public monitoring systems including cameras and ultimately leading to ID cards and universal bar coding of citizens, this proposal is redundant, you don't even need to go into the plethora of privacy issues it would lead to.

A Rep of Komokom. (Who deplores the continued creation of pointless non-specific proposals that gum up the U.N. , Plus, this one is just an NS Issue in U.N. Proposal's Clothing :wink: )

Oh yeah, and,

What is the go with that poll? It is so non-specific that it might as well be asking if we would prefer coffee over tea :wink: , I mean for crying out loud this is the kinda garbage that we gotta combat if we want a functioning U.N. It seems the only kinda proposals we are getting now are extremist left or extremist right. No to mention this and other non-specific trash.

A Rep of Komokom angered by the plain waste'o'space that this proposal and others like it constitute.

Oh yeah, and,

What is the go with that poll? It is so non-specific that it might as well be asking if we would prefer coffee over tea :wink: , I mean for crying out loud this is the kinda garbage that we gotta combat if we want a functioning U.N. It seems the only kinda proposals we are getting now are extremist left or extremist right. No to mention this and other non-specific trash.

A Rep of Komokom angered by the plain waste'o'space that this proposal and others like it constitute.